ST. STEPHEN, POPE AND MARTYR

See the Pontificals, and the works of St. Cyprian,
&c. Also Tillemont, t. 11. Orsi, t. 3, b. 7.

A. D. 257.

ST. STEPHEN was by birth a Roman, and being
promoted to holy orders was made archdeacon of that church under the
holy popes and martyrs St. Cornelius and St. Lucius. The latter going
to martyrdom recommended him to his clergy for his successor. He was
accordingly chosen pope on the 3d of May, 253, and sat four years,
two months, and twenty-one days. Soon after his election, he was
called to put a stop to the havoc which certain wolves, under the
name and habit of pastors, threatened to make in the churches of Gaul
and Spain. Marcian, bishop of Arles (in which see he seems to have
succeeded St. Regulus, immediate successor of St. Trophimus),
embraced the error of Novatian, and, upon the inhuman maxim of that
murderer of souls, refused the communion, that is, absolution, to
many penitents even in the article of death. Faustinus, bishop of
Lyons, and other Gaulish prelates sent informations and complaints
against him to St. Stephen and St. Cyprian: to the first, on account
of the superior authority and jurisdiction of his see; to the other,
on account of the great reputation of his sanctity, eloquence, and
remarkable zeal against the Novatians. St. Cyprian having no
jurisdiction over Arles, could do no more than join the Gaulish
Catholics in stirring up the zeal of Saint Stephen to exert his
authority, and not suffer an obstinate heretic to disturb the peace
of those churches to the destruction of souls. This he did by a
letter to St. Stephen, in which he says,1 “It is necessary that
you dispatch away ample letters to our fellow-bishops in Gaul, that
they no longer suffer the obstinate Marcian to insult our
college.—Write to that province, and to the people of Arles,
that Marcian being excommunicated, a successor may be provided for
his see.—Acquaint us, if you please, who is made bishop of
Arles in the room of Marcian, that we may know to whom we are to send
letters of communion, and to direct our brethren.” Though the
letters of St. Stephen on this head have not reached us, we cannot
doubt but by his order every thing here mentioned was carried into
execution; for, in the ancient list of the bishops of Arles published
by Mabillon, the name of Marcian does not occur.

An affair of no less consequence happened in
Spain. Basilides, bishop of Merida, and Martialis, bishop of Leon and
Astorga, had fallen into the crime of the Libellatici, that is, to
save their lives in the persecution had purchased for money libels of
safety from the persecutors as if they had sacrificed to idols. For
this and other notorious crimes Martialis was deposed in a synod, and
Basilides was so intimidated that he voluntarily resigned his see.
Sabinus was placed in that of Basilides, and Felix in that of
Martialis. Basilides soon after repented of what he had done, went to
Rome, and imposing upon St. Stephen, was admitted by him to communion
as a colleague in the episcopal order; which was the more easy as no
sentence of deposition had passed in his case. Returning into Spain
with letters of the pope in his favor, he was received in the same
rank by some of the bishops; and Martialis, encouraged by his
example, presumed to claim the same privilege. The Spanish bishops
consulted St. Cyprian what they ought to do with regard to the two
delinquents, and that learned prelate answered; that persons
notoriously guilty of such crimes were, by the canons, utterly
disqualified for presiding in the church of Christ, and offering
sacrifices to God; that the election and ordination of their two
successors having been regular and valid, they could not be rescinded
or made null; and lastly, that the pope’s letters were
obreptitious, and obtained by fraud and a suppression of the truth,
consequently were null. “Basilides,” says he, “going
to Rome, there imposed upon our colleague Stephen, living at a
distance, and ignorant of the truth that was concealed from him. All
this only tends to accumulate the crimes of Basilides, rather than to
abolish the remembrance of them; since, to his former account, hereby
is added the guilt of endeavoring to circumvent the pastors of the
church.”2 He lays the blame not on him who had been imposed
upon, but Basilides who fraudulently gained “access to him.”
We know no more of this affair; but cannot doubt that the pope (whose
jurisdiction none of the parties disclaimed) was better informed, and
the proceedings of the Spanish bishops confirmed.

The controversy concerning the rebaptization of
heretics gave St. Stephen much more trouble. It was the constant
doctrine of the Catholic church, that baptism given in the
evangelical words, that is, in the name of the three persons of the
Holy Trinity, is valid, though it be conferred by a heretic. This was
the practice even of the African church till Agrippinus, bishop of
Carthage, in the close of the second century, changed it, fifty years
before St. Cyprian, as Saint Austin and Vincent of Lerius testify;
and St. Cyprian himself only appeals to a council held by Agrippinus
for the origin of his pretended tradition.3 St. Cyprian, in three
African councils, decreed, according to this principle, that baptism
given by a heretic is always null and invalid; which decision he
founds in this false principle, that no one can receive the Holy
Ghost by the hands of one who does not himself possess him in his
soul. Which false reasoning would equally prove that no one in mortal
sin can validly administer any sacrament; but Christ is the
principal, though invisible minister in the administration of the
sacraments; and though both faith and the state of grace be required
in him who confers any sacrament, not to incur the guilt of
sacrilege; yet neither is required for the validity. St. Cyprian sums
up all the arguments which he thought might serve his purpose in his
letter to Jubaianus, written in 256. Many bishops of Cilicia,
Cappadocia, and Phrygia, having at their head Firmilian, the learned
bishop of Cæsarea, and Helenus of Tarsus, fell in with the
Africans, and maintained the same error. All the partisans of this
practice falsely imagined it to be a point, not of faith, which is
everywhere invariable, but of mere discipline, in which every church
might be allowed to follow its own rule or law.* St. Cyprian and
Firmilian carried on the dispute with too great warmth, the latter
especially, who spoke of St. Stephen in an unbecoming manner. If such
great and holy men could be betrayed into angel, and biassed by
prepossession, how much ought we sinners to watch over our hearts
against passion, and mistrust our own judgment! The respect which is
due to their name and virtue obliges us to draw a veil over this
fault, as Saint Austin often puts us in mind, who, speaking of
Firmilian, says: “I will not touch upon what he let fall in his
anger against Stephen.”* The pope, who saw the danger which
threatened the Church under the color of zeal for its purity and
unity, and an aversion from heresy, opposed himself as a rampart for
the house of God, declaring that no innovation is to be allowed, but
that the tradition of the Church, derived from the apostles, is to be
inviolably maintained. He even threatened to cut off the patrons of
the novelty from the communion of the Church. But St. Dionysius of
Alexandria interceded by letters, and procured a respite, as Eusebius
mentions.4

St. Stephen suffered himself patiently to be
traduced as a favorer of heresy in approving heretical baptism, being
insensible to all personal injuries, not doubting but those great
men, who by a mistaken zeal were led astray, would, when the heat of
disputing should have subsided, calmly open their eyes to the truth.
Thus by his zeal he preserved the integrity of faith, and by his
toleration and forbearance saved many souls from the danger of
shipwreck. “Stephen,” says St. Austin,5 “thought of
excommunicating them; but being endued with the bowels of holy
charity, he judged it better to abide in union. The peace of Christ
overcame in their hearts.”† Of this contest, the
judicious Vincent of Lerins6 gives the following account:—“When
all cried out against the novelty, and the priests everywhere opposed
it in proportion to every one’s zeal, then pope Stephen, of
blessed memory, bishop of the apostolic sec, stood up, with his other
colleagues, against it, but he in a signal manner above the rest,
thinking it fitting, I believe, that he should go beyond them as much
by the ardor of his faith as he was raised above them by the
authority of his see. In his letter to the church of Africa he thus
decrees: ‘Let no innovation be introduced, but let that be
observed which is handed down to us by tradition.’ The prudent
and holy man understood that the rule of piety admits nothing new,
but that all things are to be delivered down to our posterity with
the same fidelity with which they were received; and that it is our
duty to follow religion, and not make religion follow us; for the
proper characteristic of a modest and sober Christian is, not to
impose his own conceits upon posterity, but to make his own
imaginations bend to the wisdom of those that went before him. What
then was the issue of this grand affair, but that which is
usual?—antiquity kept possession, and novelty was exploded.”

St. Stephen died on the 2d of August, 257, and was
buried in the cemetery of Calixtus. He is styled a martyr in the
Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great, and in the ancient
Martyrologies which bear the name of St. Jerom. The persecution of
Valerian was raised in the year 257, and in it St. Stephen could not
fail to be sought out as the principal victim. The acts of his
martyrdom deserve some regard, as Tillemont observes. They are
esteemed genuine by Baronius and Berti.7 This latter shows the
exceptions made to their authority by Basnage to be altogether
founded in mistakes. These acts relate that the saint was beheaded by
the pursuivants whilst he was sitting in his pontifical chair, which
was buried with his body, and is still shown as stained with his
blood. The relics were translated to Pisa in 1682, and are there
venerated in the great church which bears his name. But his head is
kept with great respect at Cologne.

Not only bishops, but all superiors, are Christ’s
vicegerents, and are bound to be mindful of their charge, for which
they will be demanded a rigorous account. How many such live as if
they had only their own souls to take care of; yet think themselves
good Christians! Few have the light, the courage, the charity, and
the zeal necessary for such a charge; and many through sloth,
self-love, or a passion for pleasure, company, vanity, and the world,
neglect various obligations of their state. It will be a false plea
for such to allege at the last day, that they have kept well their
own vineyard, whilst they have suffered others under their care to be
overgrown with briers and weeds.